An act to amend Sections 2860 and 3765 of the Business and Professions Code, and to amend Section 49423.5 of the Education Code, relating to professions and vocations.
AB 2096 would revise California law governing what licensed vocational nurses (LVNs) may do in connection with respiratory care. The bill would restore LVN authority to perform respiratory tasks and services consistent with the scope of practice that existed on December 31, 2022, rather than the narrower framework created by SB 1436 in 2022. In practical terms, this would remove the current patchwork of exemptions and training/setting-specific conditions that now limit when LVNs may provide certain respiratory services.
The bill also makes conforming changes to the Respiratory Care Act and the Education Code. In the respiratory care statutes, it would preserve and reorganize exceptions for certain non-LVN personnel and settings, while adding or clarifying provisions for LVNs in home health, small residential facilities, adult day health care, pediatric day health and respite care, and other specified settings. In the Education Code, it would expressly allow an LVN, under supervision of a credentialed school nurse, to provide basic respiratory services to pupils with exceptional needs during the schoolday when those services are authorized by the respiratory care statute.
AB 2096 would amend Business and Professions Code sections 2860 and 3765 and Education Code section 49423.5. Its main legal effect is to expand the scope of respiratory tasks and services that LVNs may perform, replacing the post-SB 1436 restrictions with a broader pre-2023 scope of practice standard. It would also remove or supersede several existing exemptions tied to employer training, competency verification, and specific care settings, while preserving certain other respiratory-care exceptions for students, emergency personnel, home health workers, and long-term county hospital employees. In schools, it would create an explicit pathway for LVNs to provide basic respiratory services to students with exceptional needs under school nurse supervision.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be presented as a pro-LVN scope-of-practice bill aimed at restoring flexibility for respiratory care delivery. The structure of the bill suggests support for broader use of vocational nurses in both health care and school settings, particularly where respiratory tasks are routine and supervised. No contrary sentiment is documented in the supplied context, but the bill’s changes imply a policy debate over whether respiratory care should remain tightly limited or be returned to a broader LVN practice model.
The likely point of contention is the balance between expanding access to care and maintaining respiratory-care licensing boundaries. Supporters would likely view the bill as reducing administrative complexity and improving staffing flexibility in home health, small facilities, and schools. Opponents, if any, would likely focus on patient safety, the need for specialized respiratory assessment, and whether LVNs should perform tasks that the 2022 law narrowed to protect the respiratory care scope of practice. Another possible issue is the bill’s removal of detailed exemptions and competency requirements, which could be seen either as simplifying the law or as reducing safeguards.